IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 515 of 2006()
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. E.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.I.V.PRAMOD
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :18/11/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
M.A.C.A No.515 of 2006
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of November , 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair .J,
We have heard senior counsel appearing for the appellant and
counsel appearing for the respondent. The claim petition arises out of an
accident, which was caused by an unidentified car, when it hit the
motor cycle in which the respondent was travelling on the pillion. Since
the details of the car which hit the motor cycle and caused accident were
not known, the claim petition was filed before the M.A.C.T. under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against
the owner-cum-rider and insurer of the motorcycle. However, the
respondent/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act,
the M.A.C.T. found that the above said petition as one not maintainable
and therefore rejected the same with a direction to the
respondent/claimant to file the claim under Section 163 A of the Act. So
the respondent/claimant sought for conversion of the claim petition to one
under Section 163 A of the Act, and the same was dismissed by the
M.A.C.T. Without mentioning the earlier proceedings another claim
petition was filed by the respondent/claimant under Section 163 A of the
Act which was allowed by the M.A.C.T. by the impugned award.
The counsel for the appellant pointed out that a claim under Section
M.A.C.A. No. 515 of 2006 -2-
163 A is not maintainable because this is a fit case for claiming benefit
under Section 163 of the Act . However, it is not known whether the
Central Government has implemented any scheme under Section 163
entitling the respondent/claimant to claim benefit . Event though we find
that it was improper for the respondent/claimant to file a fresh claim
petition without mentioning the filing of an earlier claim petition and
rejection of the same, we still feel the respondent/claimant should not be
declined relief because even under Section 140 of the Act, he is entitled
to compensation upto a fixed sum of Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disability
The Medical Board have certified 40% disability for the injury and fracture
sustained to his left femur. Even though disability is not of the type
referred to under Section 142, we still feel, since there is partial disability
which was treated by the M.A.CT. as permanent in nature, he is entitled to
a compensation of only Rs. 25,000/- . Accordingly we allow this appeal in
part by modifying the award by reducing the compensation by
Rs. 25,000/-.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE)
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
es.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
————————–
M.A.C.A. No. 515 of 2006
—————————-
JUDGMENT
18st November, 2008